"Peter Masson" <peter.masson1> wrote ...
> There was at one time a branch from near Birchington (facing Faversham) to
> Manston Airfield, but I don't know either when it was built, or when it
> was
> closed and lifted.

Wow!
I never knew that.
No help now, the North Kent line is officially the poor relation to the
Hitachi Line!

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Arthur Figgis wrote:

> Tom Anderson wrote:
>
> It's been suggested before!
>
> [..]

Curses! This is just like that time i invented savoury doughnuts only to
find out that the Chinese had been making them for hundreds of years!

I think my plan (the geographical one, not the doughnut one) is more
nuanced than theirs, though - i'm not suggesting landlocking much of the
present coast, nor building the whole thing as one big giant polder.

A link in the comments leads here, which is genius/bonkers and worth a
look:

http://www.worlddreambank.org/P/PLANETS.HTM

Also, i've read that Stephen Baxter, one of our best and most nerdy
science fiction writers, has written a book, to be published this year,
along the lines of 'what if in the Iron Age (or whenever) when the north
sea was land, the people who lived there built a giant dyke around it, and
it never flooded?' which also sounds quite genius/bonkers.

tom

Tom Anderson wrote:
[..]
> freight line), provide opportunities to create huge amounts of
> ecologically vital wetlands, and effectively eliminate the flood and
> erosion risk to the Thames estuary and East Anglia. We could even build
> a new home for the Trident fleet at the same time, to shut the jocks up.
>
> I shall write to the environment secretary immediately. Where can one
> buy a pen with green ink these days?
>
> tom
>
This will be useful when we get an application from Flanders. Clue:
what was the third most common flag at the last night of the Proms?

Tom Anderson wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Arthur Figgis wrote:
>> Curses! This is just like that time i invented savoury doughnuts only to
> find out that the Chinese had been making them for hundreds of years!
>
What a pisser.

In message <GZAcl.3611$2Z1.2012>
Martin Edwards <big_mart_98> wrote:

> Tom Anderson wrote:
> This will be useful when we get an application from Flanders. Clue:
> what was the third most common flag at the last night of the Proms?

I'm astonished that nobody has mentioned the only serious proposal;
Colin Buchanan's proposal to move "London Airport" to Maplin Sands
just beyond Foulness. It is mud flats, above high tide, but underwater
at low tide. Looking back, it was probably the right choice, but the
government of the day fluffed it.

Michael Bell

--

Andrew Heenan wrote:
> "Recliner" <recliner2-news> wrote
>>> You ve got to hand it to those Tories, first they play the environment
>>> card to stop expansion at Heathrow whilst Boris goes off and builds
>>> another airport in the Thames flood plain.
>> Not on the flood plain, but on an artificial island, like Hong Kong.
>
> They could build a peak-hours only airport at Goodwin Sands.
>
> Sorry, I meant low tide only.

Does mentioning Goodwin Sands end the thread?

In message <HIadnYKHdLjWmu7UnZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d>, at
10:41:12 on Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Arthur Figgis
<afiggis> remarked:
>> They could build a peak-hours only airport at Goodwin Sands.
>> Sorry, I meant low tide only.
>
>Does mentioning Goodwin Sands end the thread?

Only if you remove one of the O's.

"Tony Polson" <docnews2011> wrote in message
news:f0i4n4th6t7m8b4uoaj7iqf6g53a9pjff8
> "Recliner" <recliner2-news> wrote:
>> Not too close, I hope. I used to live in Northolt (just off Church
> Road between the Target and White Hart roundabouts) but far enough
> away from the flight path not to hear any aircraft noise, unless the
> wind was blowing directly towards my flat. Even then it was never
> loud.
>
> It was a different matter when the old secondary runway (05/23) was in
> use at Heathrow. The flight path was probably no nearer, and the
> aircraft were higher up, but they were much noisier, so overall the
> noise levels were quite noticeable. I have relations living in
> Greenford, Perivale, Harrow and Wembley; they were all affected to
> varying degrees when the secondary runway was being used. It was
> closed as recently as 2002.

Yes, agreed wholeheartedly about the noise levels -- the small planes
landing at Northolt are very unobtrusive, and although much closer (I'm
on the Hill) than those that used to head for runway 23 at LHR, are far
quieter. I last landed on 23 in Feb 2002, and that was a lively landing
indeed, with very fierce winds. The head wind was so strong that the
plane came to a stop long before we got to the southern runway.

In message <vpidnfehd6XWue7UnZ2dnUVZ8t3inZ2d>
"Recliner" <recliner2-news> wrote:

> "Tony Polson" <docnews2011> wrote in message
> news:f0i4n4th6t7m8b4uoaj7iqf6g53a9pjff8

> Yes, agreed wholeheartedly about the noise levels -- the small planes
> landing at Northolt are very unobtrusive, and although much closer (I'm
> on the Hill) than those that used to head for runway 23 at LHR, are far
> quieter. I last landed on 23 in Feb 2002, and that was a lively landing
> indeed, with very fierce winds. The head wind was so strong that the
> plane came to a stop long before we got to the southern runway.

I used to have to stand on Elephant and Castle station waiting for my
train to Luton. The planes passed overhead every 3 minutes. I thought
the noise was particularly miserable. The runways must have been lined
up so that they didn't line up with Oxford St and The Mall. What
forethought!

Michael Bell




--

"Michael Bell" <michael> wrote in message
news:d01b941f50.michaelbell

> I used to have to stand on Elephant and Castle station waiting for my
> train to Luton. The planes passed overhead every 3 minutes. I thought
> the noise was particularly miserable. The runways must have been lined
> up so that they didn't line up with Oxford St and The Mall. What
> forethought!

I suspect that, even 65 years ago, it was hard to find suitable space
for the future London Airport, and this was largely empty land that was
available. I've no idea if they were thinking of who'd be under the
flight paths -- probably not, as in the original plan, there were six
runways pointing in different directions, and nothing like the current
volume of flights was envisaged. But I still wonder why they picked a
spot so near Windsor Castle -- you'd think the King might have objected.

It was surreptitiously built as an RAF base, when that was never the
real plan, but I guess they needed much less planning approval in
wartime to open an RAF base than a major new civil airport. So the
people in that part of southwest London have had a very long history of
repeated government lies as an ever growing airport was forced on them.
And, as you say, wide swathes of south London have been subjected to
aircraft noise ever since.

Arthur Figgis <afiggis> wrote in
news:HIadnYKHdLjWmu7UnZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d:

> Does mentioning Goodwin Sands end the thread?

Is that Inspector Goodwin Sands?

"Recliner" <recliner2-news> wrote:
>
>It was surreptitiously built as an RAF base, when that was never the
>real plan, but I guess they needed much less planning approval in
>wartime to open an RAF base than a major new civil airport. So the
>people in that part of southwest London have had a very long history of
>repeated government lies as an ever growing airport was forced on them.
>And, as you say, wide swathes of south London have been subjected to
>aircraft noise ever since.


Surreptitiously? Surely Heathrow was designed solely as an RAF base,
albeit one with long runways by the standards of the day (they were
considerably lengthened in later years).

The original intention was that London's airport was to be at Croydon. A
secondary airport for London was located at Northolt. At what stage was
Heathrow selected to replace both of these?

You seem to be suggesting the early 1940s. I suggest that the decision
probably wasn't made until at least the end of the 1940s, when it became
apparent that Croydon and Northolt were too restricted in size (for new
generations of larger aircraft) because of surrounding development.

In message <0mi6n4lp25t1utc2do3p2oj7ibgp98rtn1>, at 15:35:10 on
Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Tony Polson <docnews2011> remarked:
>You seem to be suggesting the early 1940s. I suggest that the decision
>probably wasn't made until at least the end of the 1940s, when it became
>apparent that Croydon and Northolt were too restricted in size (for new
>generations of larger aircraft) because of surrounding development.

Boris was on the BBC this morning describing Heathrow as "a 1940's
planning mistake", if that sheds any light on it.

Roland Perry <roland> wrote:
>In message <0mi6n4lp25t1utc2do3p2oj7ibgp98rtn1>, at 15:35:10 on
>Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Tony Polson <docnews2011> remarked:
>>You seem to be suggesting the early 1940s. I suggest that the decision
>>probably wasn't made until at least the end of the 1940s, when it became
>>apparent that Croydon and Northolt were too restricted in size (for new
>>generations of larger aircraft) because of surrounding development.
>
>Boris was on the BBC this morning describing Heathrow as "a 1940's
>planning mistake", if that sheds any light on it.


The light that needs to be shed is whether Heathrow was chosen to be a
future civil airport at the time construction started. The Wikipedia
entry suggests that it was designated as a military airport for long
range transports servicing the war with Japan, but a reference suggests:

"Harold Balfour (later Lord Balfour), then Under-Secretary of State for
Air (1938-1944), wrote in his 1973 autobiography, Wings over
Westminster, that he deliberately deceived the government committee into
believing a requisition was necessary in order that Heathrow could be
used as a base for long-range transport aircraft in support of the war
with Japan. In fact, Balfour wrote that he always intended the site to
be used for civil aviation, and used a wartime emergency requisition
order to avoid a lengthy and costly public inquiry."

Either that is true, or Balfour used the indubitable benefit of
hindsight to demonstrate just how much foresight he had in 1943. The
ability and desire to re-write history should not be underestimated. ;-)

However, what does appear to be true, if you take the Wikipedia entry at
face value, is that Heathrow was never used for military purposes (which
I find surprising*) and was handed over to the Ministry of Civil
Aviation on 1 January 1946.


[*I have a recollection of someone who claimed he was stationed at
Heathrow with the RAF in 1944, but he and his wife are long dead so I
cannot confirm.]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:35:10 +0000, Tony Polson put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>"Recliner" <recliner2-news> wrote:
>>
>>It was surreptitiously built as an RAF base, when that was never the
>>real plan, but I guess they needed much less planning approval in
>>wartime to open an RAF base than a major new civil airport. So the
>>people in that part of southwest London have had a very long history of
>>repeated government lies as an ever growing airport was forced on them.
>>And, as you say, wide swathes of south London have been subjected to
>>aircraft noise ever since.
>>Surreptitiously? Surely Heathrow was designed solely as an RAF base,
>albeit one with long runways by the standards of the day (they were
>considerably lengthened in later years).

Construction of the modern[1] Heathrow began during WWII, so it's
extremely implausible that it was originally intended as anything
other than an RAF base - the money and resources (including political
will) would not have existed for a civilian airfield at the time. But
it wasn't completed until after the end of the war, and was never used
for military purposes. By 1948 it was appearing on OS maps as "London
Airport"[2], so it had clearly ceased to be an RAF establishment by
then (especially given that military sites were still censored on OS
maps until well after that date).

>The original intention was that London's airport was to be at Croydon. A
>secondary airport for London was located at Northolt. At what stage was
>Heathrow selected to replace both of these?

Heathrow was never selected to replace *both* Northolt and Croydon, as
such. AIUI, the original intention during WWII was that, once
constructed, the RAF would move from Northolt to Heathrow and leave
Northolt, along with Croydon, for future civilian use. But it soon
became obvious that Northolt was too small for that, so Heathrow was
transferred to civilian control as soon as the war ended, before
construction was complete, and the RAF moved back into Northolt as
soon as civilian traffic cold be fully transferred to the newly-built
Heathrow. Once Heathrow opened it, due to its capacity, soon became
the primary airport for London with Croydon as the main secondary
airport. Subsequently, Croydon was also closed, due to lack of space
to expand, and Gatwick became London's main secondary airport. The
decision to close Croydon wasn't taken until 1952, and the last flight
from Croydon wasn't until 1959.

>You seem to be suggesting the early 1940s. I suggest that the decision
>probably wasn't made until at least the end of the 1940s, when it became
>apparent that Croydon and Northolt were too restricted in size (for new
>generations of larger aircraft) because of surrounding development.

Northolt and Croydon were only briefly active as civilian airports
simultaneously post-WWII. In the immediate post-war period, Northolt
was transferred to civilian use, but reverted back to the RAF once
Heathrow was fully open (prior to 1948) and Croydon closed in 1959.
It's unlikely that the decision to close Croydon was directly linked
to the opening of Heathrow - Croydon was supplanted by Heathrow as the
primary airport simply as a result of Heathrow's greater capacity, and
then closed in favour of Gatwick as the main secondary airport some
years later.

[1] The first airfield in the area was created during WWI, and
subsequently became a private airfield used primarily for testing. But
that was never anything more than grass runways and a few sheds. See
[url down]
for its location on a pre-WWII map

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Heathrow_1948.jpg

Mark